One, to Mian Nawaz Sharif: how would the ouster of President Zardari guarantee both a change for the better and strengthening of democracy if you relied on street power rather than on the constitutional method of changing the government? Leave aside the issue of the PML-N’s capacity to oust a powerful president who enjoys the support of a host of political parties and who heads the country’s largest political party, which has the most experienced and trained agitational cadres. This question has wider implications not only for the struggling economy and divided society but also for the peaceful and democratic transfer of power in future. Just as the PML-N is resorting to calling its cadres out on the street to oust an elected government, other parties can also follow suit in future on the same logic : bad governance. Will this not mean a return the old politics of perdition that was marked by all kinds of Machiavellian tactics to unseat an elected government? We all took pride in Mr Nawaz Sharif when he returned from his ‘exile’ with an ‘unwavering commitment’ to upholding democracy and civilian supremacy. And he did stick to this policy during the last three and a half years and kept the political system alive, for all the ills of the PPP-led coalition. He even earned the opprobrium of being a phoney opposition leader. But perhaps deep inside, he was convinced of the futility and destructiveness of confrontational politics. He vied for democratic solutions to the myriad crises of the state and society. Therefore, he never crossed the point of no return, though he got a number of opportunities to earn political mileage. For instance, he did not allow the PPP government to fall when the MQM and the JUI-F walked out of the coalition. So why has he now turned against President Zardari and wants him out by hook or by crook? The common hypotheses are that he wants to deny the PPP a majority in the coming Senate election; and that he wants early elections to stop Imran Khan from making further inroads in his stronghold, Punjab. But there is another reason that lies in the sociology of politics. A new generation has come of age when both the Sharifs and Benazir Bhutto were away during Musharraf’s rule. These young men and women have a new outlook on politics. Unlike their predecessors, they do not view politics as a tool wielded by the landed, business and bureaucratic elites for their personal aggrandisement. For them politics is a continuous process of changing the state and society for the better, constitutionally and in terms of social justice and equal opportunity. Therefore, they are increasingly anti-status quo politics. Also, behind their new outlook on and about politics is a groundswell of irreversible contemporary trends and influences — modern education, individual entrepreneurship, globalised culture, scientific and technological advancements, new experiences in art and culture, and the communications explosion and universal connectivity. They are also aware that no state, howsoever powerful, can insulate its people from these influences. And they are keenly watching the power of their counterparts in the form of the powerful tyrannies being swept away all over the Middle East and North Africa. Therefore, many of these bleary-eyed youth are also desperate to get rid of the dearth, destitution, violence and injustice abounding in their midst. Initially, many of them were inspired by Nawaz Sharif’s anti-establishment and pro-change message, particularly during the lawyers’ movement. But seeing that he did not have the corresponding transformational vigour and socio-political programme, a la Z A Bhutto, they began to turn their gaze to Imran Khan who had been relentlessly and adroitly accusing both the Sharifs and President Zardari of protecting the status quo, inefficiency and corruption. Two, to Imran Khan: how would you bring about a clean and efficient political system in the country if you are focused only on the urban support, and that too only of Punjab? No doubt, the PTI’s recent massive gatherings in Lahore and elsewhere in Punjab have been huge and Imran Khan has finally ‘arrived’ on the national scene. But he has an uphill task ahead. Unlike the traditional politicians who dealt with the half-literate and ‘amenable’ masses, he has to connect with and win over a new stock of the young populace, which as mentioned above are ‘programmed’ for an unstoppable process of change. Confronted with today’s increasingly skills-oriented, individualistic, commercial and competitive environment, the youth need a protective, empowering and enabling state to help them optimise their creative and productive potentials. This requires a massive rehashing of the entire gamut of public administration and policies. Can Imran Khan achieve that, relying on the urban youth and ignoring the millions of the poor and marginalised people who are condemned to a medieval way of life, denied modern social and political institutions? Rural society cannot be ignored for other reasons. It provides the foot soldiers to jihadi outfits; traditional politics’ mainstay is also the rural bases; the most brutal human and civil rights violations are taking place there, and more than 60 percent of the population live and work there. Yet, the PTI seems to have no agenda for this hugely vital part of society. And without winning rural constituencies, Imran Khan will not form a government powerful enough to effect radical reforms. Three, to President Zardari: how would you justify your stay in the Presidency as the head of the ruling party and state when the government is perceived to be ‘inept’ and ‘corrupt’ and the state is increasingly marooned in crises? True, the constitutional reforms have shifted the powers to the prime minister via the National Assembly, and the government has many an internal and external challenge, in addition to being held hostage to its insatiable coalition partners. Even then the answer is not in the survival of the PPP-led government, but of the democratic system. And democracy can never flourish without idealistic, ideological and philosophical underpinnings. Indeed, the PPP has survived many a tyranny on the strength of the Bhuttos’ political romanticism. But President Zardari’s politics is embedded in a survival strategy. As a result, the ethical and ideological constants have lost importance to opportunistic and pragmatic variables. What is good for politics is what is enduring for power. But the downside of this power politics is that it entails a constant struggle to dominate the balance of power among the stakeholders, and thus, to appease the various political and other actors, even at the cost of public interest. Unfortunately, the PPP is caught in this trap of power politics. Though counter-culture coups are not effective at the fag end of governments, unless you have a Mao Zedong for a leader, the PPP can still redeem its much tainted image through good governance and organisational reforms, with no compromise on public interest. But no one can tell if it will do that. Introspection and self-initiated reforms are not the hallmarks of our leadership. The writer is a lawyer and academic. He can be reached at shahabusto@hotmail.com